[YoRyan]

conductorchris, on 22 July 2020 - 04:23 PM, said:

I'm going to propose that we call the new format "train" (instead of consist or wagon-list).

You know, I could get behind this concept. It's intuitive and there is a certain appeal to naming the eventual editor "Train Editor" rather than "Block Editor" or "Wagon List Editor."

Just one question: Where would we store the .train-or files? "TRAINS\TRAINS" seems just a little redundant.

conductorchris, on 22 July 2020 - 04:23 PM, said:

I'm going to further propose that we use the term "section" or "set" for the consists/loose consists/blocks, etc that are included into a train. ... I would suggest it would be useful to have "section" files as a separate format designation even if the format is identical to the "train" file, because it helps the user keep track of the difference in purpose.

I would rather we not have a duplicate format, which would necessitate duplicate code paths. But this would not rule out some method of distinguishing between the two kinds of "trains" in the GUI, or even a dedicated field - which we sort of already have in the "PlayerDrivable" flag.

Same goes for "sets."

conductorchris, on 22 July 2020 - 04:23 PM, said:

There is a third file type we should specify and that is the list of equipment to be drawn from when a "train" or "set" calls something random. That file would have a list of wagons or engines and (like the others) a comment field. Open rails should be able to check if the selected wagon or engine is present in the TRAINSET folder and make a different choice if it isn't, so we can make long lists of possible cars that will still work if people can't or don't want to download all required stock.

Interesting idea. What if we introduced it as a new type of consist?

{
    "DisplayName": "1x Pacific Surfliner Locomotive",
    "PlayerDrivable": false,
    "Preferred": [
        {
            "Engine": "3DTrains_Surfliner/F59PHI_450"
        },
        {
            "Engine": "NALW_P42/P42_Amtk_5"
        },
        {
            "Engine": "dash9/dash9"
        },
    ]
}

The "Preferred" type would not use any probabilities. It would pick the first available wagon or engine from a list of alternatives.

[YoRyan]

Okay, I have adopted the "Train" name for the new classes. "train-or" files shall reside in the TRAINS\LISTS folder. The "Consist" directive now refers explicitly to an MSTS consist. The "Train" directive has been added to refer to other OR train files. (The specification in the OP has been updated.)

But this raises another question - what should be done about the GUI? Virtually every other part of the simulator - the launcher, the HUD, the manual - still uses the term "consist." If we're serious about this terminology change, it seems to me that all instances of "consist" would need to be replaced with "train," which would entail a significant amount of effort. "Show both" is not an option because having two identical "play with a consist" and "play with a train" modes would hardly be very user-friendly.

[roeter]

R H Steele, on 22 July 2020 - 11:33 AM, said:

[...] Operation for Activity, perhaps shortened to ".ops" for .act.

Sorry, but that's quite wrong. When talking about details or whatever for an 'Operation', we're not talking about an activity. An operation can be either an activity or a timetable. So you cannot define a new name or filetype for an Operation as it can be two different things. Even with a complete new data definition I cannot see activities and timetables being merged into one format. The principles are just too different to be merged, and the user requirements are very much incompatible.
This goes to show how careful one must be in using either existing names or defining 'new names for old'. The word 'Activity' should, however, most certainly not be used in this context as it would make it seem that these new definitions etc. are restricted to 'activity mode' only.
I would suggest to look for words like 'run' or 'session'.

conductorchris, on 22 July 2020 - 04:23 PM, said:

There is a third file type we should specify and that is the list of equipment to be drawn from when a "train" or "set" calls something random. That file would have a list of wagons or engines and (like the others) a comment field. Open rails should be able to check if the selected wagon or engine is present in the TRAINSET folder and make a different choice if it isn't, so we can make long lists of possible cars that will still work if people can't or don't want to download all required stock.

That is in line with the 'placeholder' concept which I mentioned earlier.
Because it is a bit too long for a post, I have attached a short document in which my thoughts on these 'placeholder' files are set out.
I know that placeholder is a rather poor name, but I can't think of anything better at the moment.

 ThoughtsOnPlaceholderFiles.pdf (46.88K)
Number of downloads: 322

conductorchris, on 22 July 2020 - 04:23 PM, said:

In American usage, the word for equipment assigned to a specific use is "pool". I think that might be a bit of an esoteric term, unfriendly to newcomers. I'm not sure what else to call it though.

'Pool' is already an established concept, with related files format (.pool-or), in timetables. It would be very confusing to use it for something quite different within this context, so it will have to be something else.

Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

[R H Steele]

roeter, on 23 July 2020 - 03:51 AM, said:

Sorry, but that's quite wrong. When talking about details or whatever for an 'Operation', we're not talking about an activity. ...
Regards,
Rob Roeterdink

Genma Saotome, on 20 July 2020 - 06:04 PM, said:

Professionally speaking with data it is always important that the name is precisely understood and not open to multiple interpretations -- every disagreement i encountered professionally over the name of something was due to quite different concepts tagged with one name. A classic example would be a class name applied to several wholly different specializations when the argument was about the specific and not the general..

Rather than carrying a name along from MSTS days it would be better to leave it behind -- and do so with as many of them as possible so when the old word gets used in conversation or code everyone knows it means only the KUJU definition. THAT is why I recommend Train and Block over sonsist, that is why I think Operation should replace Activity, .fcar and .pcar replace .wag. Hanging on to obsoleted names impairs understanding and leave to door wide open to making mistakes. One is not going to make a typo with .Block, nor misunderstand on receiving that file that it will not be the same as if it were .con; The name and all of its contents are new.

>>> my emphasis gds.

Rob, I was quoting from a previous source. Your complaint should be taken up with Dave. Point of fact --- new terminology should be used to provide a clear distinction between MSTS and Open Rails. Up to you folks on the team, and more experienced hands than myself to decide what that terminology ( and usage ) should be. I'll be able to learn and adapt to most anything....just words and symbols....words and symbols. We only attach meaning to them as a social construct. ( and then the quibbling over meaning begins in earnest http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/ko2.gif http://www.elvastower.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif )

[YoRyan]

A thoughtful proposal, Rob. In my opinion, a placeholder is best defined as an additional train/consist type, akin to "List" or "Random." We already have the code and it would be a straightforward extension. A "Pool" type (okay, probably the wrong word) can also be introduced to guarantee a unique selection from a finite number of slots, or what you refer to as "repeat restrictions."

Yes, the "operations" versus "activities" case is analogous to "consists" versus "trains." It is fine to say the two are separate file formats that should have separate names, but at the end of the day, they both serve the same function, so we have to settle on a term that can describe both of them.

[cjakeman]

YoRyan, on 22 July 2020 - 11:36 PM, said:

Okay, I have adopted the "Train" name for the new classes. "train-or" files shall reside in the TRAINS\LISTS folder. The "Consist" directive now refers explicitly to an MSTS consist. The "Train" directive has been added to refer to other OR train files.

I'm trying to keep up with this fast-moving topic.

With the new "Train" object, do we still have the hierarchy suggested earlier of Train = list of blocks/sections/sets and block = list of wagons ?

[YoRyan]

No. I oppose such a hierarchy because the formats would be identical regardless of what we label them. So to clarify, as of now, everything is a "Train."

[Genma Saotome]

I suggest slowing down for a bit. Let's return to defining the basic concepts and then finding the right name for them AFTER we agree on the concepts.

Using what I think are neutral terms, I think we have

• A collection of rolling stock that moves from point A to B or beyond. KUJU called this consist. Railroaders call this train.
  
• Subsets of the above defined to facilitate movements to different end points. No KUJU name, block, section, set, group may describe this.
  
• In some locations a subset made up exclusively of the powered units (i.e. locomotives) may be named. Examples include lashup, consist.
  
• Individual distinct items gathered together in the above subset. KUJU called these engine, carriage, wagon. Alternative names include locomotive, car, coach, etc. as well as the generic term rolling stock.

• I'm pretty sure we all agree there are many instances of item 4 that make up one item 2 If that concept is retained, and if not then they make up one item #1.
  
• If Item 2 is retained then one or more of these make up Item #1.
  
• If item #3 is retained then item #1 is composed of one or more item #3, and one or more Item2 or 4.

Trying to represent this graphically,
#1 = [2], [2], [2], [2]… or
#1 = [3], [2], [2], [2], [2]… or
#1 = [4], [4], [4], [4], [4]….


#2= [4], [4], [4], [4], [4]….


#3= [4], [4], [4], [4], [4]…. Where all #4 are locomotives


Is there general agreement on the above? By number, any disagreement? Word smithing?

[Genma Saotome]

In addition to the above may I suggest the entire topic of a Locomotive being composed of one or more .eng and .wag files be sat aside for later discussion?

[Haran Banjo]

With new unstable version U2020.07.23-2006 consists don't work, it's impossible to do anything, the game can not start in any way